Dishonour of Cheque/ Cheque Bouncing: Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act

ByVivek Kumar Verma

CASE LIST

Prosecution based on second or successive dishonour of cheque shall be permissible.
Territorial Jurisdiction in Cheque Bouncing Case
The period of six months provided in Section 138 (a) of the Act excludes the first day of drawl and includes the last day of the sixth month.
 

Similar Posts
|

M/s. Mega Cab s Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s ANI Technologies Pvt. Ltd.

ByAnkit Rastogi

M/s. Mega Cab s Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s ANI Technologies Pvt. Ltd.1 (“Ola”) AND Meru Travel Solutions Private Limited v. Uber India Systems Private Limited (“Uber”) Facts: Informants in both cases (Meru, and Mega Cabs, collectively, “Informants”) had filed complaints under Section 19 (1) (a) of the Competition Act, 2002 (“Act“) against the Opposite Parties…
| |

Permissible Limits of Conducting Product Reviews by Social Media Influencers (Decoding Marico v. Abhijeet Bhansali): Part I

ByAnkit Rastogi

The Bombay High Court in earlier part of the year 2020, has dealt with the case of permissible limits of action of viewers who review products or services. The decision is in the case of Marico Limited v. Abhijeet Bhansali[1] wherein the Learned Single Judge of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi restrained by an order…

Mr.Ramanbhai Mathurbhai Patel vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.

ByVivek Kumar Verma

Well, you read the Dashrath Rupsingh Case of Supreme Court on territorial jurisdiction in cheque bouncing case . Now read the summary of this Bombay High Court’s judgment delivered on August 25, 2014 which held that all the cases of cheque bouncing, where the cheque was payable at all branches of the bank, can be filed in the court within whose local jurisdiction the nearest available branch of Drawer’s bank was situated.

| | | |

A GUIDE TO WELL-KNOWN TRADE MARKS

ByAnkit Rastogi

 “There are marks which are different from other marks. There are names which are different from other names. There are names and marks which have become household words.” – Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mahinder Narain, Hon’ble High Court of Delhi (Daimler Benz Aktiegesellschaft & Anr. v. Hybo Hindustan; 1994 PTC 287) Abstract: Intellectual Property has many…

| |

Major (Retired) Sukesh Behl & Anr. v. Koninklijke Philips Electronics

ByAnkit Rastogi

Major (Retired) Sukesh Behl & Anr. v. Koninklijke Philips Electronics Before the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi FAO(OS) No. 16 of 2014 The present Appeal was filed by the Appellants as the Appellant’s application under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Judgment on admission) was dismissed by the…

| | | |

BLUEBERRY BOOKS & ORS. v. GOOGLE INDIA PVT. LTD. & ORS.

ByAnkit Rastogi

BLUEBERRY BOOKS & ORS. v. GOOGLE INDIA PVT. LTD. & ORS. 2014 (58) PTC 62 In 2003, the Plaintiffs published a series of books under the name ‘Moral Stories’ in 4 Parts. They claimed that the stories contained in the aforementioned books are original literary and artistic works of the Plaintiffs and are protected under…

One Comment

  1. Reblogged this on and commented:

    UPDATED: Mr. Ramanbhai Mathurbhai Patel vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., Cr. Writ Petition No. 2362/2014 (Bombay High Court, August 25, 2014) which discusses the landmark Dashrath Singh judgment delivered by Supreme Court on August 1, 2014.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *